W. Gregory Steube

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9498, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act.

At its core, this legislation is about a principle I have fought for throughout my time in Congress: Taxpayers deserve a fair shake from their Federal Government.

Americans already face a tax code that is complicated enough. When the Federal Government is litigating a tax issue that could ultimately affect the rights of taxpayers across the country, the taxpayer should not be an afterthought.

The National Taxpayer Advocate already serves as the voice of the taxpayer within our tax system. The advocate helps Americans resolve problems with the IRS, identifies systemic problems in tax administration, makes recommendations to Congress, and reports annually on the tax issues most frequently litigated in our courts.

Yet under current law, when a Federal tax case raises an issue that could broadly affect taxpayer rights, the National Taxpayer Advocate is not authorized to appear as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, to provide that taxpayer-focused perspective.

That does not make any sense.

If a court is considering an issue that could shape how the tax laws apply to Americans across the country, then taxpayers deserve to have their rights represented in that conversation. This bill closes that gap.

This bill allows the National Taxpayer Advocate to participate as amicus curiae in Federal tax cases involving issues that may broadly affect taxpayer rights, particularly the rights contained in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

This is a narrow, targeted reform. It does not authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to represent individual taxpayers. It does not replace the Department of Justice or IRS chief counsel in litigation. It simply ensures that, in the cases with broader consequences for taxpayers, the courts can hear directly from the office Congress created to identify and protect those rights.

Taxpayers fund this government. They should not have to fight an uphill battle just to make sure their rights are considered by it.

That principle has guided my work to provide tax relief to Americans rebuilding after natural disasters, to protect taxpayers' privacy and due process rights when dealing with the IRS, and it guides this legislation as well.

Earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee advanced this bill with unanimous, bipartisan support.

I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in bringing this legislation forward, and I thank the gentlewoman from Washington State, Congresswoman DelBene, for working with me on this bill.

Congresswoman DelBene and I have worked together on a number of bipartisan tax bills, and I appreciate her willingness to find common ground and work across the aisle when we can deliver meaningful results for taxpayers. Today's vote is another example of what we can accomplish when we put taxpayers first.

Protecting the basic rights of American taxpayers should never be a bipartisan issue. Mr. Speaker, when the Federal Government writes the tax laws, administers the tax laws, and litigates the tax laws, taxpayers deserve a voice standing up for their rights. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act gives them one.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support for my amendment to increase the withholding threshold for assistance to Nigeria from 50 percent to 100 percent, while keeping in place benchmarks that demand Nigeria take effective steps to address the violence and persecution that continue to devastate the country.

Nigeria has faced a horrific wave of violence that its corrupt government has failed to address. For years, and especially in recent months, Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria have been subjected to violence and terrorism at the hands of extremists who are operating with impunity. Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased.

If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of all the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding.

The generosity of our taxpayers is a reflection of the American values we hold so firmly. Never should we allow their hard-earned tax dollars to be funneled to corrupt regimes that fail to uphold religious freedom, fail to adequately confront terrorism, and fail to protect the innocent from persecution. So why are we rewarding a government that fails to meet such a basic obligation?

This amendment is simple. It does not remove the aid conditions in the bill but only strengthens such conditions. Most importantly, it upholds a principle that all recipients of American taxpayer assistance should follow: that they must prove that they are willing and able to respond to violence before receiving any funding.

Simply put, meet the standard before receiving support. That is the accountability that the American taxpayer deserves.

Foreign aid should never be a reward for failure, so as our national debt is fast approaching $40 trillion, why on Earth are we still allowing our ourselves to go further into debt by rewarding corrupt foreign governments that tolerate terrorism within their borders?

When churches are burned, women and girls are abducted, and terrorists operate with near impunity, that is not merely an internal disturbance. It is a direct assault on the freedoms our Nation claims to defend, which our foreign assistance must reflect and uphold.

This is not about punishing the Nigerian people. It is about demanding accountability for their government's complacency and ensuring that our foreign aid is leveraged to defend, reflect, and uphold American values.

Even the underlying bill recognizes the Nigerian Government's failure to meet the standard, yet it still allows for half of the funding to be released anyway.

My amendment withholds all funds until they meet basic standards. Accountability can never be divided, nor should we allow anyone to exploit the generosity of the American taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to uphold accountability in our foreign aid spending and to vote for my amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment does not end all assistance. It only strengthens the conditions and encourages the Nigerian Government to meet them.

Why should we give 50 percent of the money when the Nigerian Government has not met the criteria established in the underlying bill?

We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. Why are we sending funds to corrupt countries overseas that are unwilling to fully address violence and persecution? The generosity of the American taxpayer should reflect American values. We can't be putting ourselves more into debt to countries that are unwilling to uphold our values.

The U.S. should not borrow money to subsidize foreign governments that fail to protect innocent civilians. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding until the underlying conditions are met.

The Nigerian Government continues to fail to address violence in their country. Why should they still be eligible for funding given their lackluster response to the violence?

Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, the underlying bill contains several conditions for assistance to be made available to Nigeria, which includes taking effective steps to prevent and respond to violence and hold perpetrators accountable; prioritizing resources to support victims of such violence, including internally displaced persons; actively facilitating the safe return, resettlement, and reconstruction of communities impacted by the violence; and allocating sufficient resources to address the aforementioned conditions.

This begs the question: If Nigeria isn't meeting these conditions fully, why should they receive any funding? If they truly want the support of the American taxpayer, then they should be meeting these goals.

Furthermore, while the underlying bill directs prioritization to address the atrocities occurring in Nigeria, they should be showing willingness to utilize the funding provided to address the violence before receiving funds.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act.

For me, this vote has been nearly a decade in the making. In 2018, at the Braden River Barber Shop shortly after we turned back the clocks to standard time, everyone was complaining about the change. Kids are not waking up on time. Everyone is tired. There is a rise in health-related issues. Nobody is able to enjoy activities in the evening. The list went on and on.

The question was: Why are we still changing the clocks? As a State senator in Florida at the time, everyone looked at me and asked if we could do something about it, so we did.

That one conversation led to me introducing a bill in the Florida State Senate also called the Sunshine Protection Act. I didn't know that my friend Mr. Soto had filed it before then, so I was happy to carry on the tradition.

The idea was pretty simple. Florida is the Sunshine State. We should not be forced to change our clocks twice a year and lose an hour of usable daylight in the evening simply because of outdated Federal law.

That legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in Tallahassee. In 2018, the Florida Legislature passed the Sunshine Protection Act, and Governor Rick Scott signed it into law. There was a catch. Florida could not actually implement the law until Congress acted.

The bill's success at the State level led to Congressman Vern Buchanan introducing the Federal version of the Sunshine Protection Act and introducing it year after year, never relenting in pushing for its passage. The Senate even passed the legislation unanimously in 2022, yet the House never gave it a vote.

When I came to Congress in 2019, I continued to fight to make permanent daylight saving time a reality. Today, Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of many people working on this issue, we finally have this opportunity.

Americans should never again have to participate in this outdated ritual of turning the clocks back and forth, as we can end the disruption that comes every spring and every fall when the Federal Government tells hundreds of millions of Americans to change their clocks.

Mr. Speaker, 19 States have already acted to support year-round daylight saving time once Congress allows them to do so. Florida has been waiting since 2018.

Why should we make the change? The consensus that day at the barbershop was clear for Americans. It is unhealthy and difficult on families with young children. Kids should have more daylight after school to play sports and be outside. Floridians should have more time to enjoy our beaches, our parks, and the outdoors. Small businesses, restaurants, and communities benefit when Americans have more usable daylight in the evening.

Today, we have an opportunity to finally fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Floridian, Congressman Vern Buchanan, for his leadership on H.R. 139 and for his years of work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to lock the clock. It is time to make daylight saving time permanent. It is time for Congress to finally pass the Sunshine Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''